MIKE Hunter's smaller car thesis??

"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
.. .
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "I've reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime
>> Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
>> United States and America would have a close relationship."-Washington,
>> D.C., June 29, 2006
>>
>> Video:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...60629-3.v.smil
>>
>> You only need to suffer for about 40 seconds before witnessing the
>> stupidity.
>>
>>
> It is a mistake to confuse inarticulateness with stupidity.

Perhaps, but as I said before, there are some jobs which, in MY opinion,
require clarity of communication. So, let's replace "stupidity" with
"incompetence". There are other examples. Some years ago, Kodak created a
bit of a ruckus when it refused to consider one of its employees who had
applied for a different job within the company. He wanted to be one of the
people who stands at a podium and speaks to audiences from the investment
industry. One problem: As a speaker, he was only fluent in ebonics. The news
mentioned threats of a lawsuit for racial discrimination. I assume Al
Sharpton never got wind of the story, or he would've made a trip to
Rochester to spew his nonsense. I don't recall how it ended, but it did so
quietly. I suspect someone explained to the guy that if someone spoke only
Romanian, they would not have been considered for the job either. He was
probably a smart guy, but if you can't tell, than who cares?

Back to your president:

What indication do YOU have that his speech isn't telling the truth about
his intelligence? Please don't say "Yale".

"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
.. .
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And...your wife. Where does she work. I want to touch her.
>>
>>
>
> Now that's just weird. People at work touch her all the time (nurses can't
> work without touching and being touched) but there is context to consider.
> Touching usually indicates purpose or familiarity - you lack familiarity
> and your purpose would be... ah, suspect.
>
> Mike



......or behaving like a drunk in a bar.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...

> Back to your president:
>
> What indication do YOU have that his speech isn't telling the truth about
> his intelligence? Please don't say "Yale".
>
Not my president - our president. We've had more than forty of them and
(excepting Lincoln) they were all our presidents. (I only voted for GWB the
second time around - in 2000 I wrote in a candidate.) Clinton was my
president too, although I never voted for him.

I was dubious about Bush's abilities until he had to deal with the
California electric power crisis in 2001. Governor Gray Davis of California
was lobbying Bush for tighter price caps on electricity at a time when
wholesale prices were running wild. Bush refused to do that (by executive
order) because it would make the situation worse. It wasn't obvious - I had
to think about it - but it was certainly true. Capping electric prices would
ensure there would be no increase in generation because the product would
probably have to be sold at a loss. Letting the reins go was painful for
everybody involved at the time, but it created a "gold rush" for new
generation that brought new power plants on line in record time. (Good
thing, too; historically the average time to complete a proposed plant is 15
years.) The utility I work for built two peaking plants in less than two
years.

For behind-the-scenes accomplishments (always a cheat for the president
responsible because reporters and commentators don't want to talk about
them) Bush helped put together the Israeli land concession to Palestine.
That the Palestinians threw away their chance by electing Hamas was too bad,
but the concession had the potential to stop the bleeding in one of the
hottest spots in the mid-east.

I am disappointed with Bush's performance in the last year or two, but we've
seen second term presidents get froggy before. My conservative friends
disapprove of my admiration for Franklin Roosevelt, but for sustained
leadership of the US he simply has no peers. Roosevelt and Reagan presided
over two amazing economic turnarounds and each deserves recognition. GWB
merely applied Reagan's principal of reducing tax burden to pull us out of a
relatively minor slump.

Mike

"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Back to your president:
>>
>> What indication do YOU have that his speech isn't telling the truth about
>> his intelligence? Please don't say "Yale".
>>
> Not my president - our president. We've had more than forty of them and
> (excepting Lincoln) they were all our presidents. (I only voted for GWB
> the second time around - in 2000 I wrote in a candidate.) Clinton was my
> president too, although I never voted for him.
>
> I was dubious about Bush's abilities until he had to deal with the
> California electric power crisis in 2001. Governor Gray Davis of
> California was lobbying Bush for tighter price caps on electricity at a
> time when wholesale prices were running wild. Bush refused to do that (by
> executive order) because it would make the situation worse. It wasn't
> obvious - I had to think about it - but it was certainly true. Capping
> electric prices would ensure there would be no increase in generation
> because the product would probably have to be sold at a loss. Letting the
> reins go was painful for everybody involved at the time, but it created a
> "gold rush" for new generation that brought new power plants on line in
> record time. (Good thing, too; historically the average time to complete a
> proposed plant is 15 years.) The utility I work for built two peaking
> plants in less than two years.
>
> For behind-the-scenes accomplishments (always a cheat for the president
> responsible because reporters and commentators don't want to talk about
> them) Bush helped put together the Israeli land concession to Palestine.
> That the Palestinians threw away their chance by electing Hamas was too
> bad, but the concession had the potential to stop the bleeding in one of
> the hottest spots in the mid-east.
>
> I am disappointed with Bush's performance in the last year or two, but
> we've seen second term presidents get froggy before. My conservative
> friends disapprove of my admiration for Franklin Roosevelt, but for
> sustained leadership of the US he simply has no peers. Roosevelt and
> Reagan presided over two amazing economic turnarounds and each deserves
> recognition. GWB merely applied Reagan's principal of reducing tax burden
> to pull us out of a relatively minor slump.
>
> Mike


I didn't vote for his father, but I was OK with calling him our president
because he was not a fool. I have disowned his son, though, because in his
own small mind, he is using faith as a reason to kill our soldiers. So, he's
your president, but certainly not mine. Faith has no place outside of family
life. When used to kill other people's kids, we're getting into a
constitutional problem, at least in the United States of America.

As far as his speech issues, we'll continue to differ on this. I have no way
of spending large amounts of time with GWB, so I don't know how he would
handle daily problems without a support staff. I do not believe he had much
to do with any positive events during his presidency.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:07:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

> So, he's
>your president, but certainly not mine.

Where is the $500,000.00 you owe, druggie Joey?

--
Scott in Florida

There ought to be one day-- just one--
when there is open season on senators.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I didn't vote for his father, but I was OK with calling him our president
> because he was not a fool. I have disowned his son, though, because in his
> own small mind, he is using faith as a reason to kill our soldiers. So,
> he's your president, but certainly not mine. Faith has no place outside of
> family life. When used to kill other people's kids, we're getting into a
> constitutional problem, at least in the United States of America.
>
> As far as his speech issues, we'll continue to differ on this. I have no
> way of spending large amounts of time with GWB, so I don't know how he
> would handle daily problems without a support staff. I do not believe he
> had much to do with any positive events during his presidency.
>
>
I lost faith in GHW Bush when he refused to acknowledge he sold the 1991
economic policy to Congress in return for support in Desert Shield / Desert
Storm. I can accept realpolitik, but he lacked the guts to stand up and
admit it. Bush senior was never a strong leader.

As far as the Iraq war, there was never any doubt it was necessary. CIA
intel was the very least of it; UNSCOM had been driven out of Iraq even
after Tariq Aziz admitted to them the existence of enough botulinum toxin to
depopulate a continent and 8000 liters of VX - enough to fill 11 of their
standard chemical shells and kill up to a million civilians apiece in
crowded cities by devices deliverable by small airplanes or even cars. In
the final UNMOVIC report, days before the invasion, it was recognized there
was no evidence the VX had been destroyed as claimed nor any rationalization
of why that would have happened. When Russia told us the time is near it was
time to make the move. How would you feel about GWB if he had presided over
the slaughter of ten million Americans and allowed Saddam to hold himself up
as the one who could lead the Faithful everywhere to victory over the
unbelievers? Or would that have been a smart chance to take?

There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in
progress. Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while
the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed. Iran has never made any
bones about declaring themselves to be the nucleus of Islamic revolution to
replace the last Caliph, who was deposed in 1924. Al Qaida publicly declares
their television programming to be "the Voice of the Caliphate." Saddam
occupied the seat of the Four Righteous Caliphs - Baghdad.

I'm sure you're right about all this being irreconcilable between us. In
case you're wondering, it doesn't diminish my opinion of you - you have
stood your ground well. I value worthy adversaries much more than I do
people who happen to agree with me without giving it any thought.

Mike

"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
.. .
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I didn't vote for his father, but I was OK with calling him our president
>> because he was not a fool. I have disowned his son, though, because in
>> his own small mind, he is using faith as a reason to kill our soldiers.
>> So, he's your president, but certainly not mine. Faith has no place
>> outside of family life. When used to kill other people's kids, we're
>> getting into a constitutional problem, at least in the United States of
>> America.
>>
>> As far as his speech issues, we'll continue to differ on this. I have no
>> way of spending large amounts of time with GWB, so I don't know how he
>> would handle daily problems without a support staff. I do not believe he
>> had much to do with any positive events during his presidency.
>>
>>
> I lost faith in GHW Bush when he refused to acknowledge he sold the 1991
> economic policy to Congress in return for support in Desert Shield /
> Desert Storm. I can accept realpolitik, but he lacked the guts to stand up
> and admit it. Bush senior was never a strong leader.
>
> As far as the Iraq war, there was never any doubt it was necessary. CIA
> intel was the very least of it; UNSCOM had been driven out of Iraq even
> after Tariq Aziz admitted to them the existence of enough botulinum toxin
> to depopulate a continent and 8000 liters of VX - enough to fill 11 of
> their standard chemical shells and kill up to a million civilians apiece
> in crowded cities by devices deliverable by small airplanes or even cars.
> In the final UNMOVIC report, days before the invasion, it was recognized
> there was no evidence the VX had been destroyed as claimed nor any
> rationalization of why that would have happened. When Russia told us the
> time is near it was time to make the move. How would you feel about GWB if
> he had presided over the slaughter of ten million Americans and allowed
> Saddam to hold himself up as the one who could lead the Faithful
> everywhere to victory over the unbelievers? Or would that have been a
> smart chance to take?
>
> There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in
> progress. Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while
> the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed. Iran has never made any
> bones about declaring themselves to be the nucleus of Islamic revolution
> to replace the last Caliph, who was deposed in 1924. Al Qaida publicly
> declares their television programming to be "the Voice of the Caliphate."
> Saddam occupied the seat of the Four Righteous Caliphs - Baghdad.
>
> I'm sure you're right about all this being irreconcilable between us. In
> case you're wondering, it doesn't diminish my opinion of you - you have
> stood your ground well. I value worthy adversaries much more than I do
> people who happen to agree with me without giving it any thought.
>
> Mike

You might find this interesting. Your library may have it:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...93062113&itm=1

We're dealing with Northern Ireland in the Middle East, but Bush has no idea
of the similarities, and how he's botching it. This is because he does not
read.

dbu,. wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

> > Jeff wrote:

> > > In article >,
> > > "Michael Pardee" > wrote:

> >> Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink.
> >> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm

> > I don't believe him. He just doesn't act sober enough.

> > > > Could you enlighten us? I had an alcoholic father and an alcoholic
> > > > stepmother, and I don't see the signs.

> Larry moe 'n curly is a pot-head, he wouldn't know how to tell.
>
> Prove me wrong larry moe n curly.

FedEx tracking shows that you signed for a package from me at 9:42 AM
today, and inside was a 6-pack of Curly's Liquid Gold®, named by High
Times magazine as the top-rated drug-free urine of 2006, along with
instructions, lab test results, and "accessories". I manufacture
every bit of Curly's Liquid Gold® myself ("Curly's personal touch goes
into every can"), with help from lots of Gatorade and Yoo-Hoo
chocolate soda, and demand is so high that I can't consume any
controlled substances because that would affect the purity of the
product and hurt my eBay rating.

Michael Pardee wrote:

> (I only voted for GWB the second time around - in 2000 I wrote
> in a candidate.)

> I was dubious about Bush's abilities until he had to deal with the
> California electric power crisis in 2001. Governor Gray Davis of California
> was lobbying Bush for tighter price caps on electricity at a time when
> wholesale prices were running wild. Bush refused to do that (by executive
> order) because it would make the situation worse. It wasn't obvious - I had
> to think about it - but it was certainly true. Capping electric prices would
> ensure there would be no increase in generation because the product would
> probably have to be sold at a loss. Letting the reins go was painful for
> everybody involved at the time, but it created a "gold rush" for new
> generation that brought new power plants on line in record time. (Good
> thing, too; historically the average time to complete a proposed plant is 15
> years.) The utility I work for built two peaking plants in less than two
> years.
>
> For behind-the-scenes accomplishments (always a cheat for the president
> responsible because reporters and commentators don't want to talk about
> them) Bush helped put together the Israeli land concession to Palestine.
> That the Palestinians threw away their chance by electing Hamas was too bad,
> but the concession had the potential to stop the bleeding in one of the
> hottest spots in the mid-east.

Those aren't sufficient reasons to approve of any president.
Character matters much more, and GW Bush has the character of a
spoiled, lazy rich kid who's never accomplished anything on his own.
A person who commands a military powerful enough to change the fate of
the world (positively or negatively) should be much better than him.

The Callifornia electric power crisis wasn't caused primarily by
shortages of capacity but by Enron manipulating the market, as court
records, including audio recordings, have shown, and planning the
ouster of Grey Davis to have him replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
That's not to say Davis had even an ounce of competence in him.

Until 9/11, GW Bush virtually ignored international affairs -- just as
he said he would, and rather than continue the existing peace process
he abandoned it and let the Israeli-Palestinian situation drift into
crisis. And when he finally did get the US back into negotiations, he
foolishly pressured the Palestinians to hold the election that gave
undeniable legitimacy to Hamas, which won about 70% of the vote.

> Roosevelt and Reagan presided over two amazing economic
> turnarounds and each deserves recognition. GWB merely applied
> Reagan's principal of reducing tax burden to pull us out of a
> relatively minor slump.

FDR did far too little to turn around the economy. All he did was
give people hope, and it was the WWII spending that finally made the
economy recover. Neither did Reagan create an economic miracle.
Rather, he became President at the time when the OPEC cartel was
cracking (i.e., the Saudis were tired of holding back production) and
Fed chairman Paul Volcker's draconian tight money policy had been
squeezing out inflation. The recovery wasn't amazing but only
average, and Reagan's 30% supply side tax cut had to be trimmed back
to about a 25% one, which was what Jimmy Carter had initially
proposed. The GWB economic recovery also hasn't been spectacular,
with very few new jobs being created and median incomes being almost
flat, and the only reason big budget deficits have been tolerable is
because China has prevented labor inflation.

Michael Pardee wrote:

> I lost faith in GHW Bush when he refused to acknowledge he sold the 1991
> economic policy to Congress in return for support in Desert Shield / Desert
> Storm. I can accept realpolitik, but he lacked the guts to stand up and
> admit it. Bush senior was never a strong leader.

President George Bush was out of touch with the average American's
everyday life -- he visited a supermarket in 1984 and was amazed that
price scanners existed, and in one campaign speech he shouted for the
rights of owners of S corporations, as if there was a massive public
outcry for them. OTOH Bush did well handling Reagan's worst economic
mistakes, the deficit and the savings & loan crisis, and he knew how
to deal with the Soviets and Chinese. And the way he led the Gulf War
was simply brilliant -- organizing a true international coalition,
exhausting diplomacy before taking any military action, and going in
with enough troops to win decisively.

> As far as the Iraq war, there was never any doubt it was necessary. CIA
> intel was the very least of it; UNSCOM had been driven out of Iraq even
> after Tariq Aziz admitted to them the existence of enough botulinum toxin to
> depopulate a continent and 8000 liters of VX - enough to fill 11 of their
> standard chemical shells and kill up to a million civilians apiece in
> crowded cities by devices deliverable by small airplanes or even cars. In
> the final UNMOVIC report, days before the invasion, it was recognized there
> was no evidence the VX had been destroyed as claimed nor any rationalization
> of why that would have happened.

But the war was completely wrong for our interests, as I've
consistently maintained since 2002, and that was assuming that we'd
fight Iraq the right way, with a true international force that
included at least 500,000 Americans and the co-opting of the Iraqi
military and police early after military victory. Saddam simply had
no nuclear weapons and only insignificant amounts of chemical and
biological weapons (and no credible ways to deliver them), wasn't
cooperating with any international terrorists, and had been too well
penned-up by British and American air patrols.

The chief UN weapons inspector said nothing had been found in Iraq,
and his team had been given fairly free reign (as free as could be
expected from a huffy dictator) to check almost everything in Iraq,
and they stopped their work only because of impending US invasion.

> When Russia told us the time is near it was time to make the move.

Vladimir Putin has long been fence sitting between the US and China,
and with the Iraq war he probably thought it was better to side with
the US because he expected us to be the winner..

> How would you feel about GWB if he had presided over
> the slaughter of ten million Americans and allowed Saddam to hold himself up
> as the one who could lead the Faithful everywhere to victory over the
> unbelievers? Or would that have been a smart chance to take?

And what if any president allowed tens of millions of Americans to die
because he failed to go to war against Iran? IOW your scenario about
Iraq never had any credibility among people who knew even the basics
about the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq was never a smart bet.

> There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in
> progress.

Saddam hated the Islamic revolution, which was probably why Iraq under
Saddam had no al Qaeda presense.

> Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while
> the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed.

I'm sure the news broadcasts in China pay lots of attention to those
regions because the Chinese government certainly has. They've
recently been playing their economic and diplomatic hands brilliantly,
plus our actions of the past six years have made things easier for
them. Something is really wrong in the world when people in most
nations approve more of China than the US.

> Iran has never made any bones about declaring themselves to be
> the nucleus of Islamic revolution to replace the last Caliph, who
> was deposed in 1924. Al Qaida publicly declares their television
> programming to be "the Voice of the Caliphate." Saddam
> occupied the seat of the Four Righteous Caliphs - Baghdad.

Then how should we handle Iran and the Islamic revolution? I don't
think that taking away Iran's most important enemy in the Middle East
was a good idea, nor was it smart to let the nations that perceived us
as being invincible in early 2002 (when we had just taken over
Afghanistan) to realize that we weren't invincible after all,
something the Iraq war has done.